I'm on a 32 bit OS Windows XP Home–will be upgrading to a 64 bit XP Pro–and I'm upgrading my RAM to 16GB. Should I see a difference? I typically compress a ton of files at one time. The 32 bit @ 4GB RAM is really 3.25GB RAM and when I'm compressing 20 files–which takes all 3GB–the system is almost frozen. Comparison of 32-bit and 64-bit memory architecture for 64-bit editions of Windows XP. Physical or architectural limit to 32-bit Windows. Still using a 32-bit Windows machine. On 32-bit Windows with PAE Patch. Particular units of memory. 32-bit systems have a limit on the amount of.
64Gb Ram XP Patch here Found it on the internet,and unfortunatelly I lost the adress,but I've save it on my drive. Disclaimer I won't be held responsible for anyone bricking their OS by trying this. By downloading this patch,using it,and potentially destroying your XP because you didnt back up your boot.ini, you agree that is solely your responsability. Always do backups. Have an XP image at ready, backup your boot.ini in a text file,and be sure all your important data is safe. That being said, if one follows those steps carefully (btw,I chose second method-you only change the last line in the boot.ini), nothing can truly go wrong,and in the end, you're gonna have a nice SP3 running on 8,12,or 16 Gb RAM,according to your memory installed.
I'm using it for a week everyday with no issues. And again, I think you guys are well versed in Windows,so it should be fine. Edited January 2, 2017 by liquidLD. You mean, over 4GB on 32-bit Xp?
The Sp3 is a hint to the 32-bit version. So, using the Pae, each task (or application?) can access its own 4GB, like in Server Windows, up to the 64GB Dram, is that it? Yes, on 32 bit XP.
It's my understanding that in a 32 bit PAE system,no app can acces more than 3-4 Gb, but the system can utilise in some manner all the memory available. So,even if one app cannot use,let's say,more than 3 or 4 Gb, the OS,as a whole can. And it's always good to have lots of memory. Especially when you run many apps at once.
Edited for some grammar mistakes (not a native speaker) Edited January 2, 2017 by liquidLD. Oww, comeon, this horse has been beaten to death. Windows XP 'Gold' or SP1 has no issues with PAE (more than 4 Gb of memory), it was an artificial limitation introduced with SP2, there is a whole loooong thread dedicated to the matter and to the possible patches and to the issues that they may cause.: jaclaz Why would anyone use SP1 just to have PAE? Isnt it more appropriate to use the latest service pack and still have Pae support? As for 'Gold' something, sorry, I dont know about it. I just talk about what I know, my own experience.
I saw some of the 'death beats',and they involve a lot of configs,and boot params. What I use is simple,very simple. I'm sorry to bore you, I understand you might not want this, but some,maybe they want.
![4gb 4gb](/uploads/1/2/5/4/125414207/332325918.jpg)
I remember looking for ways to use 8Gb in XP a long time. Actually,it involves only copying the two files in C:/windows/system32/,and writing this in your boot.ini: boot loader timeout=30 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1) WINDOWS operating systems multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1) WINDOWS='Microsoft Windows XP Professional' /kernel=ntkl64g.exe /hal=hal64g.dll /fastdetect /PAE /noexecute=alwaysoff Thats all. No fiddling around with ten billions parameters,and hacks,you know? Edit man, thats a long messy thread.
I'm gonna make a clear simple one, for the ones that might want it Edited January 2, 2017 by liquidLD. This patch like any other similar patch is - not unexpectedly - very stable on some hardware and extremely unstable on other hardware, it is not 'news', that patch it is a well known one, it is around since 2011 or so, in this or that version: You are obviously new to the board, so you may well have missed the most relevant topics about that, that pointertovoid missed all the discussions is a bit harder to believe, and - apart from this - you do understand that you are posting.everythng. in a thread titled 'Intel (Haswell) HD 4600 XP drivers here'? The general idea is to look for previous discussions on a given topic/matter, and once determined that you have something of interest or new about that topic, post there your contributions or comments. Otherwise we will soon have tens of duplicate info in mis-titled topics.
After reading all that long complicated thread for achieving 'True Pae' on XP 32 bit, (sent to me by friend jaclaz after he saw the link I posted in another thread - just for the record) I decided to make this simple one, to achieve the same. The interface in the screenshots is localised,so if you need help,just ask.
As always, your responsability if you follow my guide. Here is the patch 0. Copy hal64g.dll and ntkl64g.exe to C:/windows/system32/ 1. Go to Control Panel - System- Complex-Settings 2. Click on Edit button 3. After backing up (or not) the default boot.ini in a file, delete all the text and paste this text: boot loader timeout=30 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1) WINDOWS operating systems multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1) WINDOWS='Microsoft Windows XP Professional' /kernel=ntkl64g.exe /hal=hal64g.dll /fastdetect /PAE /noexecute=alwaysoff. Save and reboot.
Everything should be set up,and your Ram,all of it,should appear,and be available. Edited January 2, 2017 by liquidLD. That's simply the Chinese patch which has been discussed over and over again and it may create some incompatibilities with USB drivers (as it has been discussed over and over again). There's another patch as well, which is the Russian patch, which achieves the same result as the Chinese one (same files), but includes some sys files from Windows Server 2003 x86 in order to avoid (well, at least, to limit) the USB issue discovered. I have been using the same method you posted for months, then I switched to the Russian patch 'cause I was too lazy to replace system files with the ones from Windows Server 2003 x86. Yes, I think it should be merged to the other main topic too.
2 users on a dif forum are arguing about win xp 32 bit limitations 1st user ' How do you get XP 32-bit to address 4 GB RAM? That's an OS limitation at least out of the box. ' - I agree with this statement but second user replied 'Physical Address Extension has been available for NT-based systems since Windows 3.5.
The limitation is that each APPLICATION running has a 4GB limit, not the OS as a whole. Now with that said, Windows does try to limit the maximum still to 4GB, but PAE actually supports much more, and you CAN enable that ability. It's not appropriate for me to post that here but a hint is that XP and Server 2003 Enterprise are in almost every way the same OS.' Does it make any sense what the 2nd user is trying to explain?if yes how can one enable 32bit XP to see / take advantage of more than 4gb ram EDIT Few minutes later he said 'The 'patches' are merely enabling some options that Windows Server 2003 already has.
(XP equ 2003) And the licensing policy mumbo jumbo is precisely why I can't post links to the instructions. It's against the TOS for this forum. It's not hard, though.
I had XP with 8GB of RAM on my old laptop. I only use 7 on this laptop because the discreet graphics don't work in XP. If someone is ever able to hack the Insyde BIOS in this laptop, I'll completely disable the Intel chip and install XP for SURE. ' Anyone has any idea what he's talking about? Never seen XP 32bit machine use 8GB of RAM, unless it was using WInXP x64 edition. Even though you may have tricked the OS to see more RAM it doesn't mean it really using it. I have an Everex XT5300 that the manufacture used BIOS setting or update to change the way it reads the RAM so it effects how the OS sees the total RAM size.
If your laptop supports 64 bit wide data bus then the OS can utilities that 64bit highway. Which in XP 32bit OS does work, but doesn't utilize the 64bit highway. Again, a machine will work but only half of the computing power. Youll notice it more, when using intense graphic software.
I've seen the machine slow down due to the fact of in compatibility between hardware and software OS version. Windows XP is still viable OS, many companies that use PC type machines for their network system can't just upgrade to the latest and greatest.
So XP is not dead and actually useful, for us type of users XP may not be so awesome to use. I write programs in LabWindows (test building software using ANSI C or C), if I move a Windows XP program to a faster 64bit machine, most always it doesnt work. Fact is that compatibility between the program and the hardware. PAE is only used on 32bit OS systems. Reason is-if you push way to much data down the highway you'll need a way to buffer (hold area) the data. PAE will have a negative impact on your PC in performance when PAE is enabled and the highway doesn't support it. The person is confusing PAE and 4 GB Tuning.
There are many misnomers about PAE that spread like wild fires on the Internet. PAE provides multiple functions: 1: 32-bit CPU to access over 4GB of memory.
2: Windows Server 2003 32-bit editions to use up to 128GB of memory. 3: Hardware-enforced DEP.note. Even though 32-bit versions of XP/Vista/7 can have PAE on, the OS is still limited to 4GB. Microsoft hard coded this into the OS because of driver and software conflicts with more than 4GB of addressable ram. For oses with PAE enabled that are limited to 4GB of memory, you can use some ram drive software to use ram above 4GB to make a ram drive on your computer.
32-bit OS's that can use PAE to address over 4GB of ram require 36-bit addressable memory aware drivers. PAE to increase memory to 128GB on x86 is for 4GB Tuning allows some Windows editions to use 3GB of memory for applications, rather than being limited to 2GB. Is only available on Windows Server 2003 and XP Professional. XP SP0 and SP1 still had PAE mode.
In SP2 it was disabled, except if your processor had NX-bot capability and then it only allow one bit of the extended address space to be used. Even with PAE processes still only had access to the 4GB virtual memory space, of which only 2GB (or 3GB) was usable.
And PAE has nothing to do with how wide the data bus is. That's been at least 64-bits wide since the original Pentium (which had no PAE capability). EDIT: Actually, modern processors only have 16-bit or 20-bit wide connections.